Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC

In article , says...

It is surprising to me that someone with your demonstrated intelligence is so
consistently drawn to simplistic and fatuous arguments. Have you really no
interest or ability to discuss anything seriously?




I guess we can just take your refusalto respond to this, and any other serious
question, as a "no"...

I think we're all in agreement on that premise.

VOR-DME writes:

I do not agree that this advertisement _deliberately misleads_ anyone about
the capabilities of the aircraft, and I wonder if you really understand the
FIKI packages on Cirrus and Mooney to make the statements you do.

The advertisement fails to make any mention of the fact that flight in icing
conditions is dangerous, even if the aircraft is certified for flight into
known icing conditions. The latter certification gives you an extra margin for
escape from the icing conditions; it is not a blank check that allows you to
flying through icing conditions whenever and wherever you wish with impunity.

I notice that "flight into" is even omitted at certain points, as if to hide
the fact that FIKI isn't designed for continuous arbitrary icing conditions.

FIKI allows you to enter icing conditions within certain narrow limits and
continue flying indefinitely within those narrow limits. That doesn't mean
that it's a good idea to fly in icing conditions. And icing conditions can
change within seconds from something your aircraft can tolerate to something
that will bring your aircraft down in just a few minutes.

The only prudent way to deal with icing is to avoid it. FIKI gives you less
reason to panic if you find yourself in icing conditions, but no more.

The article makes it sound like you can just sail through any type of icing
conditions without a care in the world. It doesn't explicitly say this, it
just does just about everything _but_ explicitly say it.

I do agree
that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
this is probably irresponsible advertising.

I haven't seen the video part. I'll have to take a look at it, although that
will probably only worry me more.

There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented in
accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if, and
the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many inexperienced
pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves is hasty
and irresponsible.

No more hasty and irresponsible than asserting that any Cessna 172
manufactured before Cirrus starting building airplanes can be ignored in
statistics because it's probably no longer flying.

a writes:

Has anyone heard of a Cirrus going down because it flew into icing
conditions?

Yes. There have been at least seven incidents in which icing was a factor,
according to the NTSB.

Icing conditions are most often found in IMC -- does any pilot among
us rated for IFR take his SEL into known icing conditions?

Does any pilot here fall for the marketing spiel that Cirrus maintains?

We have here someone with no known real world training in the art
offering his insights: humor him if you like, but there is no
evidence, at least none that I remember, that when confronted with
factual information that is in opposition to his views that he changed
his views.

If you spent as much time as I have looking at the accident database, instead
of wasting time on the formulation of petty personal attacks, you'd have the
same evidence I have.

writes:

What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????

The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.

Jim Logajan writes:

What post of mine made claims about such things?
Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?

I haven't been trying to keep track of who posts what, as the discussion
concerns aviation, not individuals.

Mxsmanic wrote:

If you spent as much time as I have looking at the accident database, instead
of wasting time on the formulation of petty personal attacks, you'd have the
same evidence I have.

If you had spent any time looking at accident databases and had any
understanding of what you were looking at, you would be well aware that
the rates increase with complexity and wouldn't be arguing about it.

But given your superficial understanding of aviation and statistics, you
would probably think comparing the stats of a C150 to a 747 means something.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

What post of mine made claims about such things?
Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?

I haven't been trying to keep track of who posts what, as the discussion
concerns aviation, not individuals.

You don't have to as the newsreader does that for you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 16, 6:24*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
Has anyone heard of a Cirrus going down because it flew into icing
conditions?

Yes. There have been at least seven incidents in which icing was a factor,
according to the NTSB.

Icing conditions are most often found in IMC -- does any pilot among
us rated for IFR take his SEL into known icing conditions?

Does any pilot here fall for the marketing spiel that Cirrus maintains?

We have here someone with no known real world training in the art
offering his insights: humor him if you like, but there is no
evidence, at least none that I remember, that when confronted with
factual information that is in opposition to his views that he changed
his views.

If you spent as much time as I have looking at the accident database, instead
of wasting time on the formulation of petty personal attacks, you'd have the
same evidence I have.

My comment and questions were actually directed to pilots. I rarely
respond directly to trolls.

writes:

If you had spent any time looking at accident databases and had any
understanding of what you were looking at, you would be well aware that
the rates increase with complexity and wouldn't be arguing about it.

The rates of encounters with icing conditions? I don't think so.

writes:

You don't have to as the newsreader does that for you.

I don't bother to look. Since I respond to specific points rather than to
specific personalities, it doesn't really matter who wrote the post.